Conversations with History – James M. McPherson
”Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief” James M. McPherson, Professor of History Emeritus, Princeton University, October 27, 2008, 60 minutes Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Princeton Professor Emeritus James M. McPherson for a discussion of his new book, Trial by War. Their discussion focuses on the qualities that defined Abraham Lincoln’s leadership, how he came to define the role of commander in chief, the evolution of his thinking on national policy with regard to slavery, how his goal of saving the Union shaped the politics of the war, his relationship to his generals, and the thinking and circumstances that led to his suspension of habeas corpus and the initiation of military tribunals. Professor McPherson reflects on the lessons to be learned from Lincoln’s conduct of the civil war and its implications for today’s wars. globetrotter.berkeley.edu globetrotter.berkeley.edu
August 30th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
@OneWorldHistory I know, I kind of liked seeing that “pussy ass retard” response. Arguing with an uneducated person who clings to a revisionist history is pretty pointless, but as much as one can possibly “win” on the internet, it’s by getting that sort of comment. Because he obviously “lost”. That’s when somebody says when they don’t have anything to back it up. Obviously the SCV’s and UDC’s only cause for which they fought was the enslavement of black americans. Thanks for the compliment!
August 30th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
@gkatta *chuckle* Rather amusing that that your well-presented contextual reasons for the existance of the SCV and UDC are met with “pussy ass retard” as a response. Of course these institutions exist to celebrate a romantic vision of the antebellum south and concomitantly the confederate soldiers, in fact, their charters even say so. “we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought.” They tip-toe around the issue of slavery… but there it is, right in their charter.
August 30th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
@jrewert I feel the same in a way, but I did like how he mentioned that Lincoln defended his overuse of power beyond the Constitution because he felt as Commander in Chief his primary duty was to save the country at all means. I do love the quote at the end of the book where McPherson says “The Civil War destroyed the old Union and built a new and better one on its ashes”
August 30th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
@gkatta
YOU’RE A PUSSY ASS RETARD.
August 30th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I don’t have any need to browbeat Civil War cosplayers, nor do I have to contact the neo-confederate institutions you have such a hardon for. These are people that long for and cherish the days of slavery, and their position of glamorizing a defeated party in a war is as rational as supporting the Nazis. You don’t talk to crazy people, because they have so little going on in their lives that they actually take to youtube defending their ancestors’ actions defending slavery. Lame dude.
August 30th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
@gkatta
Well, I suppose if you don’t like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy you ought to write them and tell them so. As it turns out I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the War Between the States, as well as several ancestors that were abolitionists.You might also want brow beat Confederate Civil War reenactors too! Matter of fact, write the Museum Of The Confederacy and tell them what you think !! You go, girl !!
August 30th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
@janedoe1024 Why do we need organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy? To celebrate their ancestors support of slavery? Isn’t that by extension, supporting their aim to defend the institution of slavery? The defense of american slavery and those who fought to keep it intact is by definition white-supremacist, and only those with southern delusions would be able to convince themselves otherwise.
August 30th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
another politically correct historian, just what we need. What a load of crap he writes.
August 30th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
@channelislander
“one of the greatest historians of all time ”
channelislander : You’re a dimwitted dork! You know nothing of the Civil War. Try “The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies” for God sakes! You’re a dork! Try Bruce Catton for God sakes, birdcraphead!
August 30th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
one of the worst:
During a radio interview in 1999, Princeton University historian James M. McPherson, a scholar [so-called] of the Civil War, associated the (UDC) with the neo-Confederate movement and described board members of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia as “undoubtedly neo-Confederate”. He further said that the UDC and their male counterparts, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), have “white supremacy” as their “thinly veiled agendas.”
August 31st, 2010 at 12:12 am
Some members of the UDC and the SCV said they were outraged and stated that the two organizations do not have a racist agenda. Some SCV and UDC chapters urged their members to boycott McPherson’s books and engage in letter-writing campaigns of protest. In response, McPherson stated that he did not mean to imply that all SCV or UDC chapters, or everyone who belongs to them, promote the white supremacist agenda. [What a lie] He further stated that [only] some of these people have a hidden agenda.
August 31st, 2010 at 12:39 am
A nearly one-year-old interview with one of the greatest historians of all time garners a measly 2000 views, whereas Fred and the other puerile (if sometimes funny) fools garner millions of views per month. Somehow this means something.
August 31st, 2010 at 1:11 am
It was a good book, but I did not feel a new perspective was really added to Lincoln’s legacy.